We SHOULD, but we DON’T. And since we live in reality instead of Shouldland, I can’t help thinking that it would be a lot tougher on a Neanderthal than it would on a black woman.

These are things we SHOULD consider thoroughly before doing anything stupid.

The question of rights. Based on what we know Neanderthals were as intelligent as us, so that solves the problem. We have human rights because of our intelligence so Neanderthals, space aliens, or what ever has the same intelligence should have rights. They should be legal persons, able to vote, and yes there should be legislation against discrimination.

They’re not sure about speech but we think they have it due to the FOX2P gene but that’s really irrelevant to the question of rights. Some humans are born unable to speak but have normal intelligence, and not just deaf humans. We teach them sign language and they live mostly normal lives with all the same rights as everybody else. If Neanderthals are mutes we can teach them sign language too.

As for school I think who ever becomes their legal guardian would probably want to have them home-schooled but if not schools can deal with any bullying or harrassment like they normally do. And even then I think things would get a lot easier in high school since then kids are more mature.

Also there’d have to be more than just one if we’re going to learn anything for 3 reasons. 1. Since they’d have human rights (or sentient rights?) some might eventually opt out of scientific studies in spite of the financial benefits. 2. Make it easier to find love. Nothing wrong with sentient interspecies love but we don’t know how different their personalities will be from ours so having other Neanderthals will make things easier. 3. In order to study Neanderthal behavior and psychology well enough we’ll need more than one Neanderthal, and preferably Neanderthals of both sexes and from specimens found in different locations. Otherwise the behavior could be particular to the gender, a certain genetic lineage, or even the individual him/herself.

I think the biggest problem would be renaming humanism and humanitarianism, since both those words would sound supremacist but we’d run into that sooner or later when we meet aliens. Maybe sapientism or sentientism would work?

I know some people might not agree that ethically we’d have to give them rights so I think until there’s a definite consensus on that they shouldn’t proceed.

sent from: fav.or.it [FID5395236]

Ate some cereal this morning? Those grains were genetically engineered over thousands of years by your ancestors. Own a dog or a cat? Genetically engineered. The horses and cows that used to help us grow our genetically engineered food are also genetically engineered.

All “genetic engineering” is, is a means of accomplishing this much faster and with greater control over the outcome. To think “playing god” is something new, something unique to modern science is just ignorance.

That said, cloning our extinct relatives might not be ethical. What we have to consider is not whether or not we have the ‘right’ to do it, we have the right to do anything we want. But if we are to be responsible we need to consider whether what we’re doing will be destructive or cruel. We need to consider what kind of life this person would have. Would they feel alone? An outcast in a society that will forever view them as an outsider?

I think it is entirely ethical as long as the Neanderthal is happy. We’re not talking about creating an animal in a lab, an animal that is incapable of considering the implications of it’s life, an animal that is perfectly happy as long as it has plenty of food and a nice place to sleep. We’re talking about a person. If we’re going to bring Neanderthals back, which I think we ultimately should, we’ll have to put a lot of thought into how we’re going to arrange for them to grow up, and how they’re going to integrate into our society.

Even though they’re artificially created, you’re going to want to give them as normal a life as you can. It should be similar to knowing you’re adopted. They should grow up in a normal home, with normal parents that are enthusiastic about raising an unusual child.

The challenge, of course, is that we really don’t know how Neanderthals thought. Considering Gorillas appear to think and feel in a way very similar to us, I think it’s a safe bet to assume a Neanderthal, which is almost identical to us genetically, would be little different mentally and emotionally.

Ultimately I believe this is something we should do. We’re probably the reason Neanderthals aren’t around today in the first place. It would make the world a more interesting place, and certainly answer a lot of questions. Obviously this is not a project you just jump into. Something like this if (when, really) we decide to undertake it, will take many years of careful planning and thought.

Upon re-reading your description, though, maybe I have the question wrong. Instead of “should we clone a Neanderthal?” maybe it ought to be “should we HAVE cloned a Neanderthal?”

Let’s see: bad posture, low brow ridge, lots and lots of body hair, questionable communication skills… hmm. Unless cloning reveals that Neanderthal man’s dick was located on his chin, I don’t think modern guys have much to worry about.

Now let’s clone some… it’s not like we can’t get rid of them again.. (LOL!) or was that not funny?

No seriously, I don’t see the big problem here… maybe it’s because I live in a Scandinavian country with very little racism.

Wikipedia:

Four native Fuegians, including “Jemmy Button” (Orundellico), were brought from Tierra del Fuego by Robert Fitzroy on his first voyage with the Beagle in 1830. They were taken to meet the King and Queen in London and were to an extent celebrities. The surviving three returned to Tierra del Fuego with the Beagle with Charles Darwin, who made extensive notes about his visit to the islands.

Pocahontas and Rolfe lived in the suburb of Brentford,Middlesex for some time. As well as Rolfes family home at Heacham Hall, Heacham, Norfolk. In early 1617, Smith visited them at a social gathering. According to Smith, when Pocahontas saw him “without any words, she turned about, obscured her face, as not seeming well contented” and was left alone for two or three hours. Later, they spoke more; Smith’s record of what she said to him is fragmentary and enigmatic.

Then you have to add another level of complexity over that when you are dealing with cross-species cloning where the error rates jump right up. Then add another layer when you can’t get a complete/uncorrupted DNA sample.

I figure we’ll see a Neanderthal walk among us in our lifetime, but for now, let’s let guinea pigs be guinea pigs and keep Neanderthals in the biology text books a little while longer.

Then again, I guess they’re not looking for “Could Neanderthals talk?” but “Can Neanderthals talk?” It doesn’t seem like a question worth asking.

As far as cloning a Neanderthal goes, I have a strong feeling that Vince is on the right track… a small group would be curiosities, kept for novelty or experimentation; if a large enough population developed, we’d have a new source of cheap gardeners and cooks, without even the marginal restraints imposed by common “humanity.”

By the way, Isaac Asimov addressed a very similar situation in 1958 with The Ugly Little Boy… one of his best, although I’d stick to the original novella, not the expanded version.

We have no crystal ball. For every dystopia imaginable, a utopia is equally imaginable. Likely scenario is somewhere in between, yes? That is life on Earth in places like Somalia, but we do not ban reproduction there, or even condemn it.

If Earth had the choice of colonizing other planets, with the certainty it would be tough, and the alternative of extinction, would we hesitate? Not likely. There would need to be reasonable steps taken to make the process as fair and reasonable to all concerned as is possible, but the answer is not a categorical “no”, in my view.

Here, we are not talking about a different planet, or extinction around the corner for our humans (though there is always that risk), but the justification for controlled colonization of Earth by extinct tribes or animal species is similar – in the long run, on balance,we end up with a stronger and more interesting Earth. That thesis my conflict with Darwin’s theory of evolution, but who here thinks Darwin would be opposed to reviving N’s if it was possible in his time? Read the Voyage of the Beagle (very readable on Librivox.org by MP3 player for free) and then decide. Darwin was a fabulous explorer, interested in all aspects of nature, from spiders to geology. He would visit all over, kill (or collect) everything he could find (in the way of animal specimens, or indigenous types), and then move on. Now, we are talking about a sort of time travel to find specimens. The Darwin approach, updated, would be to make the efforts, but then make sure the collected N’s are treated humanely, as we would want to be treated (if they are like humans) or as favored chimps are treated (if they turn out to be essentially chimps).

Who knows, the N’s may turn out to be a race of great intellects that lead us to great achievements. Not long ago there were large numbers of whites who thought those of color could never be great leaders – things change and people learn to think differently.

I don’t know. Which is why I would say, No, don’t do it — yet. If we do clone a Neanderthal, it had better be for reasons that go beyond mere intellectual curiosity about how smart our cousins really were. If and when we can honestly say we are doing it for THEIR sake, or for the sake of all humanoids, then maybe it might be the right thing to do. I would suggest that a moral watershed might be when our moral zeitgeist evolves to the stage where, if it is biologically possible for a Neanderthal to interbreed with the rest of us, the question of whether that would be morally acceptable would be inconsequential. And, I am afraid, that means “not soon.”